When America elects people, they’re not electing their best. They’re not electing you. They’re electing people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

]]>Seen online:

When America elects people, they’re not electing their best. They’re not electing you. They’re electing people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/09/and-some-i-assume-are-good-people/feed/2435018On dismissing questions about democracy with clicheshttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/on-dismissing-questions-about-democracy-with-cliches/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/on-dismissing-questions-about-democracy-with-cliches/#commentsThu, 24 Aug 2017 16:01:22 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34910I’m more than a little sick of people quoting Churchill (and generally mangling the quotation badly) in discussions about democracy as though his famous remark on the topic was a substitute for clear thinking.

Blithely saying “yes, it’s the worst form of government… except for all the others! hahaha!” doesn’t really lend any new information or depth to a discussion about legal systems, decision making and institutions.

Indeed, bringing up the quotation seems to often be a way of de facto avoiding meaningful in-depth discourse rather than a way to illuminate discourse. Perhaps I’m excessively caricaturing here, but one almost ...continue On dismissing questions about democracy with cliches]]>

I’m more than a little sick of people quoting Churchill (and generally mangling the quotation badly) in discussions about democracy as though his famous remark on the topic was a substitute for clear thinking.

Blithely saying “yes, it’s the worst form of government… except for all the others! hahaha!” doesn’t really lend any new information or depth to a discussion about legal systems, decision making and institutions.

Indeed, bringing up the quotation seems to often be a way of de facto avoiding meaningful in-depth discourse rather than a way to illuminate discourse. Perhaps I’m excessively caricaturing here, but one almost imagines the subtext as: “Ha, ha, yes, isn’t it funny and uncomfortable that this goddess I worship, Democracy, is such a fickle and awful violator of my trust. In fact, so deep is my devotion to Her in spite of Her terrible behavior, and so uncomfortable is this realization that my devotion may be misplaced, that I’d rather not have this discussion at all. So, how about the baseball playoffs?”

This is not useful. Turning away from a problem that makes you uncomfortable doesn’t fix the problem, it just perpetuates it. I recognize most people don’t agree with my view of the necessity, morality or efficacy of having a state, but even among those of you with the mainstream position on that topic, there is a lot of legitimate, and even important, discussion to be had here.

For example, there is always a central question about goals versus methods. That is to say: is the point to have as good a set of laws and as well managed a legal system as possible, with voting being used as a tool to try to achieve that, or is the notion that the maximally faithful expression of the general will is in itself the goal?

If it is the latter, of course, one must accept the idea that at intervals “the people” will vote for censorship, suppression of minorities, genocide, and even worse. If it is the former, then voting is a decision making process, and one must ask, really ask, if it is truly so important that one make sure that every last person, no matter how uninterested, uninformed, or frankly stupid, should get their input into the decisions being made?

As just one more of many example of this: the drafters of the U.S. constitution (and we know this because we have their writings) feared the very sort of Imperial Presidency we’ve developed. They wanted a very limited Presidency, and they wanted the President to be elected quite indirectly. Indeed, at the start of the U.S.’s experiment in government, the Electoral College was a meaningful body, and the Electoral College members were often chosen by state legislatures and not even directly by the people. This was specifically intended to impede the potential for large, ignorant mobs to have too much of a hand in the selection of the President.

Now, if your goal is to give “the people” as much say as possible in the selection of the President, well, this probably seems like a bad thing, and indeed, the electoral college would seem like an institution to be subverted or defanged to the greatest extent possible. If, on the other hand, you are trying to make sure that on average the decision made is reasonable (though perhaps not a particularly imaginative or interesting one) and that extreme decisions (especially extremely bad ones) are very unusual to impossible, this choice makes considerably more sense.

When people whip out the old “democracy is terrible except for everything else!” chestnut, and wink at you, what they’re ultimately doing is impeding thinking about this sort of thing, and certainly impeding having a meaningful discussion about the available points in the design space for institutions. Don’t be one of the people who quotes it as a substitute for having a real conversation.

(BTW, as an aside, most people get the original Churchill quotation badly mangled. It was:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

That comes from a speech before the House of Commons on November 11, 1947. You will note that he’s far less glib than the average person misquoting him.)

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/on-dismissing-questions-about-democracy-with-cliches/feed/11834910British, indeed world, politics is dominated by the idea of ‘Social Reform’ – and this is an idea which violates basic economic lawhttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/british-indeed-world-politics-is-dominated-by-the-idea-of-social-reform-and-this-is-an-idea-which-violates-basic-economic-law/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/british-indeed-world-politics-is-dominated-by-the-idea-of-social-reform-and-this-is-an-idea-which-violates-basic-economic-law/#commentsTue, 22 Aug 2017 21:56:59 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34891What is “Social Reform”? Social Reform is the idea that increasing government spending and/or regulations reduces poverty or other “social ills” (sickness and so on) and it is the idea that has dominated British thinking since the late 19th century. Liberal Party “Radical Joe” Chamberlain of Birmingham (so beloved by Prime Minister May) outlined his program of using government to improve life (the central idea of “Social Reform”) in 1865 – but Liberal Party Manchester had already taken over such things as the provision of water and gas and undertaken various other “Social Reforms” in the years after the Act ...continue British, indeed world, politics is dominated by the idea of ‘Social Reform’ – and this is an idea which violates basic economic law]]>What is “Social Reform”? Social Reform is the idea that increasing government spending and/or regulations reduces poverty or other “social ills” (sickness and so on) and it is the idea that has dominated British thinking since the late 19th century. Liberal Party “Radical Joe” Chamberlain of Birmingham (so beloved by Prime Minister May) outlined his program of using government to improve life (the central idea of “Social Reform”) in 1865 – but Liberal Party Manchester had already taken over such things as the provision of water and gas and undertaken various other “Social Reforms” in the years after the Act of 1835 set up modern local government in the cities and towns, replacing the old “Closed Corporations” – apart from in the one-square-mile City of London that has kept its Closed Corporation to this day.

Conservative Party Prime Minister Disraeli made it compulsory for local government to do about 40 Social Reforms (i.e. perpetual government spending functions) in 1875 – whether local tax payers wanted this or not. And J.S. Mill stated in 1848 (in his “Principles of Political Economy”) that “everyone agreed” (by which Mr Mill meant that he and his friends agreed – no opponent counted as part of “everyone”) that local government should do X,Y, Z, to help the people. Liberal Party Prime Minister Gladstone agreed in 1870 that School Boards be set up in most of the country (some towns, such as the one I am sitting in, refused to have one – but were forced to have one some 20 years later) to build state schools on the Prussian model – although denying they would be like the Prussian schools. And Conservative Party Prime Minister Disraeli put unions above the Common Law in 1875 – by allowing “picketing” (obstruction) and giving the unions immunity from some claims of civil damage. This was part of the theory that wages and conditions of work should not be determined by the market (by supply and demand) but by “collective bargaining” – basically (as W.H. Hutt explained in the “Strike Threat System”) of “give us what we want – or we will not allow people to go in or our of your place of business, at least we will make it very difficult for them to do so”. Conservative Party Disraeli was a Social Reformer – he had no love for “capitalists” believing (or half believing) that they “exploited” people, and Liberal Party Mr J. S. Mill had much the same opinion (indeed a more radical one) – longing for the day when workers co-ops would replace the “capitalists”.

Since about 1870 the British state has grown – not just spending more money, but spending more money even as a proportion of the economy (leading to a rise in taxes over time). In the early 19th century the state, at least as a proportion of the economy shrank – since the 1870s it has grown. Also the early 19th century witnessed deregulation – the repeal of various restrictions and edicts. From the 1870s onwards there has been a massive increase in regulation – with the state seeking to control every aspect of life, much the like the last years of Queen Elizabeth the First when there was an orgy of statute passing, often quite demented statutes such as the “Statute of Artificers” which tried to make everyone follow the occupation of their parents, there were also attempts to tie people to the parish of their birth and other throwbacks to the late Roman Empire (the Emperor Diocletian and all that).

However in the Tudor Age passing “laws” (based on the idea that the government “makes law” like a carpenter makes furniture) was largely symbolic, at least for people in much of the country, as the Tudor state (unlike the states of Continental Europe) did not really have the professional Civil Service to actually enforce its “laws”. Some people claim that Thomas Cromwell wanted to build such a professional Civil Service, but in reality his “Revolution” in government (the old claim of Professor Eldon and others) was still born – as Thomas Cromwell was executed largely at the instigation of the Duke of Norfolk (whom he had insulted by having the family tombs of the Howard family destroyed with the monastic house they were in – rather than allowing the Duke to turn the monastic chapel into a church in order to save the family tombs). The late Victorian state had a professional Civil Service (on the Chinese or Prussian model) selected by examinations and highly effective in putting regulations into practice. And the time was gone when the gentry or aristocracy could have administrators who insulted their families (or the ordinary people the great families represented in various parts of the country) executed. Certainly the industrial revolution could not have occurred if all the Tudor regulations had actually been enforced (hat tip to the late T.S. Ashton “The Industrial Revolution” for this point) – but up in places such as Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire most people had never heard of the various ravings that came out of London in the 16th century, as the only government in these areas was unpaid Justices of the Peace (mostly local landowners) who had no time for or interest in “planning society” or trying to recreate the semi totalitarian nightmare of the post Diocletian Roman Empire, although they did enforce the Poor Law (and its tax did great harm – especially under the “Speenhamland” system of wage subsidies that grow up from the 1790s till it was repealed in 1834). In the late 19th century someone like Prime Minister Disraeli could have Parliament pass a “law” and rather than everyone then forgetting about it (even people “south of the river” – just over the Thames from the City of London tended to ignore a lot Tudor stuff) the regulation would be enforced all over the country – by dedicated (and paid) “public servants” whom one could not threaten or bribe to just go away.

The difference is a basic one. The old state could come in, destroy things (such as monastic houses) and murder people it did not like (for theological or other reasons) – but then it would go away, and the landowning families (having bent to whatever theological or other ravings were coming out of London) would get back to running things – improving their farming estates (in order to make more money) and, from the 18th century onwards, investing in local industry. For the idea that industrial revolution was financed by “slavery” or “the Empire” (two different things) is a myth – it was mostly financed at first by domestic farming and then by reinvested profits made by satisfying domestic demands. The new state, from the late 19th century onwards, did not go away – it had statistics (for example the census every ten years starting in 1801 and the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act of 1836) and a professional Civil Service selected by examination who were actually interested in enforcing the ravings of the state (its new “laws” from Parliament and the regulations derived from them) rather than just in getting as much as they could for themselves and then spending it on whores (like 17th or 18th century “public servants” in London). Thus “Social Reform” became a reality. People such as the Liberal Party J.S. Mill (who followed the ideas of family mentor Jeremy Bentham – with his 13 Departments of State staffed by dedicated public servants out to help people be happy) or the Conservative Party Disraeli were not speaking to empty space (like 16th century thinkers such as Thomas “Utopia” Moore or John Hales)- their words could be put into effect. Both local and central government were now professional and full time (at least in their staff – politicians come and go, but the Civil Service and Local Government Officers, the dream of Jeremy Bentham and the “Westminster Review” Radicals, are for ever, and dedicated to Social Reform). Britain now had an administrative structure like that of Spain under Philip II or France under Louis XIV and people (Liberals and Conservatives) bewitched by the supposed success of professional government under Frederick the Great of Prussia – generally agreed that it was a Good Thing (T.M.).

That it was not the countries with “enlightened” professional governments that had agricultural and industrial revolutions – but silly old Britain with its “mixture of feudalism and anarchy” (as Mr Jeremy Bentham sneered at 18th century British government) did not seem to occur to most of the “intellectuals”. Bewitched as they were by the idea of “Social Reform”.

There is a basic problem with “Social Reform” – one which goes to its very core. Increasing government spending and regulations does NOT improve things – not in relation to what they otherwise would have been, in fact it makes things WORSE than they otherwise would have been.

French economists in the 19th century (the Say family, Frederick Bastiat and others) explained this very well – working from first principles to show that government spending and regulations did not make most people better off than they otherwise would be, but (in fact) made most people worse off than otherwise would be. Even if the “public servants” were totally honest and selected on merit (as with the desire of J.S. Mill and the rest of the Westminster Review people). ECONOMIC LAW showed that Social Reform (i.e. the increase of government spending and regulations) did not help the poor – it, compared to what would otherwise happen over time, made the poor worse off than they otherwise would be.

In France the arguments of the economists were so strong that the government had to create a new subject “Public Administration” to get pet “intellectuals” who (from the late 19th century onwards) argue that France should imitate Prussia-Germany (as the success of Prussia-Germany in the War of 1870 showed, as far as the pet intellectuals were concerned that Prussia must be right about everything) in endless “Social Reform”.

In the United States such economists as A.L. Perry (a follower of the French economist Bastiat) were by passed by a new breed of economist (led by Richard Ely – the mentor of both President Teddy Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson) who were versed in “Pragmatist” philosophy (denying laws of objective truth – including in economics) and German “Historical School” economics (also denying laws of objective truth – including in economics) and dedicated to Progressive Social Reform.

But in Britain things were a bit different – one can not really point to a revolution against laissez faire (please note this is a French language term, not an English language one) economics – as British economists (or at least most of them) do not seem to have really believed in it in the first place. Certainly economists such as J.S. Mill paid lip service to it from time to time (most certainly he paid lip service to laissez faire) – but they kept coming up with proposals for the state to do more rather than less. They were committed to the idea of Social Reform and they never really questioned its basic assumptions – or allowed for the possibility that even if public servants were entirely honest and professional they COULD NOT make the population better off than they otherwise would be – indeed that their efforts to help would do more harm and good. Increasingly “laissez faire” became redefined to mean “free trade” (meaning international trade) not “get the government out of the way at home”. Although YES, as already stated, in the early 19th century there was a reduction the size of the state (as a proportion of the economy) and the formal repeal of old Tudor “laws” – which the unpaid Justices of the Peace had often ignored anyway.

Sometimes this expansion of government was partly out of fear of socialists and others – for example Walter Bagehot says (in “The English Constitution” 1868) that “we should concede whatever it is safe it safe to concede” – and at this point mainstream British liberalism (not just Radicalism) stops having any connection with making the state smaller and becomes about making the state bigger, but in a civilised and orderly way – see any issue of the “Economist” publication (of which Mr Bagehot was the third editor) today – it pays lip service to “free enterprise” and so on, whilst nearly always supporting more benefits and “public services” – the heart of “Social Reform” from the 1870s onwards. But it was mainly a real commitment to Social Reform – a commitment to the idea that the state, if in honest and professional hands, (not nasty landowners and corrupt officials out to line their own pockets) could “do good” and make the lives of “the people” better than they would otherwise be.

This central idea of Social Reform is (as stated above) is contradicted by basic economic law – which shows that increasing government spending and regulations makes things worse (not better) than they otherwise would be. But even in 1883 when Herbert Spencer published “The Man Versus The State” a British thinker who pointed this out was considered a bit of freak – Social Reform (“Public Services” and so on) was, and is, the religion of the age. Heretics who question it, in Britain or most anywhere else, are either ignored or treated as monsters who want to harm the poor.

It is quite true that there is a dissenting faction of the Republican Party (a minority faction actually) in the United States that really does have fundamental doubts about Social Reform – about the idea that government can make the lives of people better, rather than worse. But the last Republican President who really acted on the basis of a principled opposition to the central idea of Social Reform was not Ronald Reagan (who actually tended to agree to increased spending and regulations – if they were strongly pushed by others), but Calvin Coolidge. At the very time that Conservative Party Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was boasting that for the first time in history the British government was spending more on Social Reform than on national defence, President Calvin Coolidge did not believe in Federal benefits or public services for the masses at all (a massive ideological gulf between two men that the history books describe as “conservatives”). But most American Republicans tend to go-with-the-flow (witness the increase in the Sales Tax in Republican South Dakota – the money raised is to be thrown at teacher pay, in the hope that the education of the people will magically improve), and people who believe the government should be SMALLER, such as Senator Ted Cruz, are outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. President Donald Trump with his belief that government can make things “great” or “terrific” for the people is very much the spirit-of-the-age – indeed the media and education system denounce President Trump for not believing in Social Reform (i.e. ever bigger government) enough. And they denounce President Trump for the incredible heresy of thinking that government programs, such as Obamacare, can sometimes actually FAIL and if they fail should be REPEALED. The Economist publication can hardly contain its hatred and scorn for such heretics. Of course no government benefit or “public service” should ever be repealed – only an evil reactionary could entertain such an idea. Government benefits and public services are sacred, their expansion is Social Reform – to which all decent people (of whatever political party in the world) are, or should be, committed. Otherwise a person is outside the enlightened establishment elite – they are a heretic to be destroyed.

In fact, of course, President Trump is not really in favour of smaller government (only a handful of Republicans really want smaller government) – he has just noticed that Obamacare has failed and thinks that government should deliver its impossible promises in some other way. The fact that impossible promises can-not be delivered (because they are impossible) does not occur to him. But the very fact that he commits the heresy of pointing out that a particular government welfare scheme has failed (has made things worse not better) makes him a beast to be destroyed. Government benefits and public services can not make things worse – it is blasphemy to even suggest that they make things worse. The state is God! At least the only God the establishment elite really believe in – and not just in Britain, just about everywhere. And economic law (reason) is not going to be allowed to stand in the way of Social Reform.

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/british-indeed-world-politics-is-dominated-by-the-idea-of-social-reform-and-this-is-an-idea-which-violates-basic-economic-law/feed/2134891Samizdata quote of the dayhttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-907/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-907/#commentsWed, 16 Aug 2017 21:29:36 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34865Turning to communism for fear of fascism is like suicide for fear of death

– Perry de Havilland.

Sadly, it is time to recycle this one yet again it seems.

]]>Turning to communism for fear of fascism is like suicide for fear of death

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-907/feed/14034865German Historicism and American Pragmatism are very different philosophies, but they have some similar resultshttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/german-historicism-and-american-pragmatism-are-very-different-philosophies-but-they-have-some-similar-results/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/german-historicism-and-american-pragmatism-are-very-different-philosophies-but-they-have-some-similar-results/#commentsMon, 14 Aug 2017 21:44:56 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34855German “Historicism” (whether of the “right”, Hegel, or the “left” Karl Marx) and American “Pragmatism” (Charles Pierce, William James, John Dewey….) are very different philosophies (very different indeed) – but they have some things in common which lead to some similar results. They both deny objective and universal truth – the Ralph Cudworth or Thomas Reid thinking of “We hold these truths to be self evident….” of the American Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of the Bill of Rights. Made most obvious by the Ninth Amendment – indeed the Bill of Right is clearly compiled in the wrong order, ...continue German Historicism and American Pragmatism are very different philosophies, but they have some similar results]]>German “Historicism” (whether of the “right”, Hegel, or the “left” Karl Marx) and American “Pragmatism” (Charles Pierce, William James, John Dewey….) are very different philosophies (very different indeed) – but they have some things in common which lead to some similar results. They both deny objective and universal truth – the Ralph Cudworth or Thomas Reid thinking of “We hold these truths to be self evident….” of the American Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of the Bill of Rights. Made most obvious by the Ninth Amendment – indeed the Bill of Right is clearly compiled in the wrong order, the Ninth Amendment should be the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment should be the Second Amendment – read it and it should be obvious to you.

German Historicism holds that different “truths” apply to different “historical periods” and to different “races” and “classes” – perhaps the only answer that such a relativist philosophy deserves is the one that such men as Erik Brown, “Mad Jack” Churchill and Audie Murphy gave it. But there are books that refute it, for example Carl Menger’s “The Errors of Historicism” (1883 – specifically on the German “Historical School” of economics and its denial of the universal and objective laws of economic truth), “Human Action” by Ludwig Von Mises, and “The Poverty of Historicism” by Karl Popper.

It is interesting to note that both the economists Carl Menger and Ludwig Von Mises and the philosopher (and, I must stress, very much NOT an Austrian School economist) Karl Popper were German language thinkers largely educated outside the German university system – the universities of the Hapsburg Empire did not reject the idea (to be found in Aristotle and others) that there are universal laws of truth (in human affairs – including morality) and that it was the goal of reason to find these universal and objective laws and apply them in practical life. Whatever its terrible faults the Roman Catholic Church (which dominated the intellectual life of the old Hapsburg Empire) did NOT submit to relativism – they did not forget that the word “Catholic” means “universal”, denying that different laws of morality apply to different “historical periods” or to different “classes” or “races”. An anti relativist position that traditional Christianity shares with traditional Judaism, in spite of the persecution of Jews by some Catholics, Judaism being based upon objective morality and Free Will, moral agency – indeed Spinoza was rejected by mainstream Jewish believers because, it was alleged, he rejected Free Will rejecting human moral personhood as well as the moral personhood of God Himself. To a Jewish believer, and to a traditional Christian (indeed to decent atheists also), Martin Luther’s philosophical work “The Bondage of the Will” (which makes “here I stand – I can do no other” NOT a statement of moral conscience, but a statement that means “Mr Luther, and everyone else, is a robot – just carrying out pre programmed instructions”) is actually more offensive than his diatribes against the Jews (from which Mr Hitler loved to quite – and fully in context). To libel people, in this case Jews, with various false charges, and to suggest that they be robbed and murdered is bad – but to deny human personhood itself is much worse. And one certainly does not have to be be a believer to believe in moral personhood – as the great “Commentator” on Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias showed in his “On Fate”.

American Pragmatism also rejects the idea of universal and objective laws of truth – “the right is the only the expedient in our way of thinking” (William James) may be out of context (the context allegedly makes the statement less evil than it sounds), but it actually it sums up how Pragmatism was normally understood by most of its followers (not just its enemies). Far from being a “development” of the Scottish-American Common Sense School (broadly Thomas Reid to James McCosh) Pragmatism was a radical rejection of it, and everything that was based upon it – such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. One might as well pretend (as some absurd books do) that David Hume was a mainstream part of the “Scottish Enlightenment” – when he was actually the arch critic (opponent) of it – for those interested in what the mainstream Scottish Enlightenment was about read the works of such thinkers as Thomas Reid. Or that Thomas Hobbes was a supporter of moral agency (free will), objective morality, and the moral duty to come to the aid of other people who are unjustly attacked, even if to come to their defence will lead to one’s own death – when he was actually totally alien to all this, as Ralph Cudworth took great pains to point out in his refutation of Thomas Hobbes. The central idea of the moral tradition – to use human reason to find universal laws of moral truth and to use our free will (moral agency – the “I” personhood) to act in a good way (against our base desires to do evil – in the moral struggle between good and evil that each of us is engaged in every day) is NOT what Hobbes and Hume are about.

To turn specifically to economics… both German Historicism (of both “left” and “right”) rejected universal laws of truth in economics (as it rejected universal laws of truth in everything else) – everything is relative to the “historical stage” and to “race” and “class”. And American Pragmatism is the same on this matter – it also rejects universal and objective laws of truth in economics.

To both the Historicist and the Pragmatist – if a government or Revolutionary Movement (for some of these people reject “the state” as traditionally understood) does not deliver X and (according to their doctrines) it was the correct time (historical stage0 to deliver X then it was because of some TREACHERY (either Class Treachery or Race Treachery) – the leaders did not will X hard enough. And any failure by the state or a political movement can be “fixed” – for example, to American Pragmatists, the idea that Obamacare is against the universal and objective principles of economic law is meaningless (because there are no such principles) if the political leaders will medical care for all hard enough it will arrive, and if there is some flaw in the scheme it can be “fixed”. The endless calls to “fix” Obamacare are really calls for the state to deliver something that violates the basic laws of political economy (for example the calls for lower costs for something that covers more, rather than less, medical conditions) – and only “make sense” to people who believe that the basic laws of political economy do not exist.

The ultimate expression of both Historicism and Pragmatism was probably Benito Mussolini and his Fascist Movement – much better read than Adolf Hitler and much flexible than “Lenin” (although Mussolini had been senior to “Lenin” in the international Marxist movement) – Benito Mussolini took the various Historicist and Pragmatist thinkers of his day (and the British Fabian and other thinkers also) and blended them together to produce his Fascist movement. For example, Mussolini would have understood BOTH sides at Alexandria Virginia in the recent fighting (the “Alt Right” and the “Anti Fascist” Marxists) and could have blended into EITHER side at will – given speeches that either side would have supported, indeed cheered wildly. Did Mussolini really believe in any of it? To him that would have been a silly question – as there was no such thing as objective truth any more than there was any such thing as objective morality, ideas were just about how to gain POWER and he took “the right is only the expedient in our way of thinking” quite literally, just as he did the idea of the “myth” in Sorel, a radial development of the idea of the “noble lie” in Plato.

The promises of such political movements violate the basic and universal laws of economics? These movements deny such laws (or the laws of objective and universal morality) even exist – so that does not bother them.

For example, how many United States Senators believe (really believe) in such laws of economics? Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee out of a 100? Any more? Perhaps one or two more – but not many more than that. The same is true of the British House of Commons.

We live in an age where the basic ideas of the Historicists and Pragmatists (in the sense of their denial of economic laws as limits on what politics can provide to people) dominate modern thought (including the thought of many establishment “economists”) – in truth we live in a Fascist Age, both among open Fascists (such as the people who went marching through the University of Virginia at night with lighted torches chanting “Blood and Soil” – the very Nazi movement their grandfathers fought to destroy) and among the Marxist Frankfurt School (“Politically Correct”, “Diversity”, “Critical Theory”…) “anti Fascists” also.

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/german-historicism-and-american-pragmatism-are-very-different-philosophies-but-they-have-some-similar-results/feed/1534855National Socialists are Socialistshttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/national-socialists-are-socialists/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/national-socialists-are-socialists/#commentsMon, 14 Aug 2017 21:41:22 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34853National Socialists are socialists and trying to counter the “Identity Politics” of the left with more “Identity Politics” is like trying to counter arsenic with cyanide

One does not really need to read “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek or “Omnipotent Government” by Ludwig Von Mises (although it is good to read these works – especially “Omnipotent Government”) to know that National Socialists are socialist collectivists – watching the Nazis, for that is what they are, marching at night with lighted touches through the University of Virginia chanting “Blood and Soil” should tell anyone that these people have nothing ...continue National Socialists are Socialists]]>

National Socialists are socialists and trying to counter the “Identity Politics” of the left with more “Identity Politics” is like trying to counter arsenic with cyanide

One does not really need to read “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek or “Omnipotent Government” by Ludwig Von Mises (although it is good to read these works – especially “Omnipotent Government”) to know that National Socialists are socialist collectivists – watching the Nazis, for that is what they are, marching at night with lighted touches through the University of Virginia chanting “Blood and Soil” should tell anyone that these people have nothing in common with the philosophy of the Bill of Rights – that they are collectivists, socialists.

“But Paul the opposition to them was controlled by Marxists – a movement that has murdered even more people than the Nazis” – and where have I denied that? I understand that very well – and I have condemned the left, in the strongest terms, all my life. But one does NOT oppose arsenic with cyanide – one does NOT oppose the “Identity Politics” of the “left” (of the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Diversity” crowd) with an “Identity Politics” of the “right”.

“But Paul one can not defeat the Marxists with the philosophy of the Bill of Rights (mocked for centuries now by the “educated” – Mr Hume, Mr Bentham and so on) – one can only defeat collectivism with a different form of collectivism”.

A pox on such a “victory” – and a pox on all those who choose it.

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/08/national-socialists-are-socialists/feed/4334853“…I find it rather regrettable that Lady Hale’s judgment makes so many references to defecation.”https://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/i-find-it-rather-regrettable-that-lady-hales-judgment-makes-so-many-references-to-defecation/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/i-find-it-rather-regrettable-that-lady-hales-judgment-makes-so-many-references-to-defecation/#commentsSat, 22 Jul 2017 17:27:22 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34614said Lord Walker, a UK Supreme Court Justice in one, rather unfortunate case. However, we had better get used to Lady Hale’s judgments as she has now been nominated as the next President of the Supreme Court, a promotion from her position as Deputy President, and her influence on UK law will grow.

said Lord Walker, a UK Supreme Court Justice in one, rather unfortunate case. However, we had better get used to Lady Hale’s judgments as she has now been nominated as the next President of the Supreme Court, a promotion from her position as Deputy President, and her influence on UK law will grow.

Why anyone should be concerned that a former academic lawyer with her track record should be in charge of a court that does not sit en banc is that she may well control the lists and influence which judges sit on particular cases, thereby having scope to shape the law.

“It may be a genuine occupational qualification to choose a black Othello or a female Desdemona, but could it be thought a genuine occupational qualification to bring a minority perspective to the business of judging in the higher courts?

“So do we need to revive the argument for some special provision, akin to that in Northern Ireland, to enable the appointing commissions to take racial or gender balance into account when making their appointments? Would that really be such a bad thing? I think not.”

But some might prefer to have judges who judge the case before them on the basis of applying the law, rather than their own perspective, if one hoped for the rule of law to be seen to be maintained.

The trouble with the UK’s Supreme Court is that it is really the result of a Lefty wet dream about judicial activism, finally in 2005 (wef 2009) destroying a long tradition (before then vandalised in the 1870s) of the UK’s final court* being a committee of the House of Lords. (* Not for Scots Criminal Law, which remains under the Scottish Court of Session).

The UK’s Supreme Court has been described by one of its justices as a political court, being politicised by its inevitable involvement in devolution issues and interpretation of Human Rights and EU law (as was, to be fair, the House of Lords before it).

I have a modest proposal, that the Supreme Court be abolished, saving taxpayers money and removing an avenue for more legal fees to be charged in pursuit of a result, thereby removing work and money from the legal profession and reducing litigation risk. There is a simple alternative, that should a party find that litigation results in an injustice, or a nonsense whereby different UK courts have different precedents to follow, that party could petition Parliament to change the law, even in respect of that particular case, as happened in the Burmah Oil case. This approach would have the advantage of getting our Parliamentarians to see the consequences of the laws that they pass (or do not pass) and also take up time that could be spent passing more unhelpful legislation.

To those who say that our politicians should not be our judges, I say ‘Better than our judges being our politicians.‘

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/i-find-it-rather-regrettable-that-lady-hales-judgment-makes-so-many-references-to-defecation/feed/5834614The overheating Samsung S24F356 – and thoughts about why there are so many complaints about capitalismhttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/the-overheating-samsung-s24f356-and-thoughts-about-why-there-are-so-many-complaints-about-capitalism/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/the-overheating-samsung-s24f356-and-thoughts-about-why-there-are-so-many-complaints-about-capitalism/#commentsTue, 18 Jul 2017 13:33:37 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34584There are several reasons, mostly to do with me getting older, which have caused me to slow down as a Samizdata contributor, but just recently something more mundane has been getting in my way. I needed a new computer screen, my previous one having stopped working. I thought that a sprint, metaphorically speaking, would sort this out, but the sprint turned into a marathon.

There are several reasons, mostly to do with me getting older, which have caused me to slow down as a Samizdata contributor, but just recently something more mundane has been getting in my way. I needed a new computer screen, my previous one having stopped working. I thought that a sprint, metaphorically speaking, would sort this out, but the sprint turned into a marathon.

When buying things like computer screens, I prefer shopping in actual shops to internet shopping. I find returning defective goods to shops less complicated than returning them to internet suppliers, not least because I now get free travel on London’s public transport system, but also because I have a face in front of me to complain to and from whom to demand satisfaction. But more fundamentally, I like to see, close up, what I am thinking of buying, rather than relying on imperfect internet imagery. When I start out buying something like a new screen, I don’t really know what’s now being offered or what I would now like, until I start looking at what’s now available, in the flesh, so to speak.

So, for instance, as I got stuck into my screen browsing, I realised that I might appreciate at some time in the future being able to attach my screen to one of those bolted-onto-my-desk swinging arms, thereby freeing up some desk space. Not all screens have the screw holes in the back of them to make this easy. Often, those imperfect internet images don’t tell you about this.

I will spare you a blow-by-blow account of everything that happened during my screen marathon, but two particular things made life difficult. One, shops (Currys PC World in particular) have a nasty habit of displaying screens as being on sale when, it turns out, they aren’t available on account of having run out. Only the one manky old display version remains. Twice, my efforts to buy a screen were thwarted by this nasty little shop habit.

But worse, far worse, was that the first screen that I decided to buy, a Samsung S24F356, turned out to be defective. When I got it home and plugged it in, I discovered that it was seriously overheating. The right hand edge of the screen, near to where the power feeds in, quickly became almost too hot to touch. That couldn’t be good. The tropical weather that has been afflicting London lately solidified my determination not to tolerate this. So, back I went with it to Currys PC World Tottenham Court Road. And I swapped my Samsung S24F356 for an identical model, another Samsung S24F356. Everything else, apart from the overheating, about the Samsung S24F356 seemed very nice, and I assumed – well, I hoped – that the overheating on the first Samsung S24F356 was a one-off misfortune.

Wrong. Exactly the same thing happened again, with my second Samsung S24F356. This too suffered from an identical overheating problem, in the exact same places. At that point, the Samsung S24F356 was definitely off my list of potential screens, and if you are thinking of buying a Samsung S24F356, the very least you should do is get someone to plug it in to check if it overheats, before you even think about buying it.

My quest for a satisfactory screen continued. I visited two different branches of Maplins, neither of which, it turned out, sold any screens at all, but by then I was also looking at those swinging arm thingies, which Maplins do sell. And I also visited John Lewis in Oxford Street, Peter Jones in Sloane Square, and no less than four different branches of Currys PC World, before I finally saw (and was able to buy) what I wanted, in the last of those four Currys PC Worlds, the one in Brixton.

While on my travels I discovered another Samsung S24F356 that was on show and plugged in, in another branch of Currys PC World, which was also overheating in the exact same manner that I had become familiar with. And, I also discovered that an identical fault afflicted at least one manifestation of the slightly more expensive curved version of the Samsung S24F356, namely the Samsung C24F396. I cannot say for sure that all versions of the Samsung S24F356 and the Samsung C24F396 are thus afflicted. Is this a design fault, or merely a faulty batch of some particular component? I do not know. What I do know is that at no point in my searchings did I encounter any versions of these two screens that were on show and plugged in that were not overheating in the manner I have described.

When I finally got my screen, I only succeeded after I had made a scene, in Currys PC World Brixton. I found a screen that looked perfect, not least because it was not a Samsung, and I then asked a Currys PC World Brixton shop assistant: Have you got any of those, actually for sale?

Er, let me see, er, um, er, um: … no.

Cue the scene, in front of several other customers. “It is very, very annoying when you put things on show and up for sale, which turn out not to be for sale. This has happened to me several times recently in various Currys PC Worlds and I’m fed up with it.” Or words to that effect. (If all else failed, I could switch my screen searching to the Internet, and both they and I knew this.)

Further efforts to find a screen of the sort I wanted which they could sell to me were then made by various Brixtonian Currys PC Worlders. In total, about four different shop assistants got drawn into all this drama, and it must have taken over half an hour in all. But the upshot was that eventually, after much searching in their storage basement, and after me doing a repeat performance of my scene, to the discomfort of another shop assistant, also in clear sight and earshot of more customers, a screen which had been on display but which was still in good nick, and its box, and all its appendages (both documentary and physical), was found. So I bought it, and I am now using it. And it seems, complete with its screw holes in the back, very good.

Why do I go to all the bother of describing my computer screen frustrations in such detail, given than I have become so remiss here lately in failing to complain about the world in a more general sort of way? Short answer: because it worked, and because I enjoy telling you about it all. Eventually, all my complaints had the desired effect. Defective screens were acknowledged to be defective. After the second one had proved defective, my money was returned. Not nearly enough to cover all the bother I had been put to, but at least I wasn’t out of pocket in mere cash. (Also, by then I was starting to realise that a Samizdata blog posting would do much to console me for all the bother.) And, finally, crucially, I eventually got my hands on what seems now to be an excellent screen.

This is the thing about capitalism. When you complain about it, it often responds by getting better. Yes, it makes mistakes, often huge mistakes, and yes, it may at first pretend that there’s no problem. But if you raise your voice a bit, the way I did and am doing now, especially now when such voice-raising can also be done on social media, you stand a very good chance of getting their attention, and of getting your problem sorted.

The Currys PC World shop assistant who refunded my overheated Samsung S24F356 money assured me that a written report of the reason for my double Samsung S24F356 dissatisfaction would be penned, by him, to be fed along the food chain. And who knows? Maybe, alerted by Currys PC World, or perhaps even by this blog posting, Samsung will realise that they have a potentially serious problem with their overheating Samsung S24F356s and maybe also their Samsung C24F396s.

I say serious, because if you google “overheating Samsung S24F356” (a phrase I was careful to include in the title of this) you get a lot of stuff about the very public overheating of various versions of the Samsung Galaxy mobile phone, which did not surprise me because I distinctly recalled all that fuss as soon as google started reminding me about it. Samsung already have a lot of experience with overheating problems. Worse, the number of different versions of the Samsung Galaxy thus afflicted suggests that the problems with the Samsung S24F356 may be more than just a few faulty components. I intend to keep on googling on this subject. So far, I have found nobody else who has noticed the overheating of the Samsung S24F356, or for that matter the overheating of the Samsung C24F396, but I am a very poor googler. Can the Samizdata commentariat discover more? If there are others who suffered as I did, Samsung could be in the middle of a quite serious problem, what with all the hoo-hah they suffered with their various Samsung Galaxies. They are starting to look like The Corporation That Cannot Prevent Overheating.

Compare all the above dramas with the public sector. In this connection I recommend that you read or re-read, whichever, this posting, that I did here in 2011, back when I used to post here more regularly than now, and which I think is one of the better Samizdata things I ever did. That posting was about an equal-but-opposite drama which I suffered at the hands of the British Post Office. On that occasion, as you will learn if you read or re-read that posting, it was I who had to suffer the assertive verbiage, which I was subjected to by the Post Office. And it was I who had to bite my tongue and pretend to be happy. They behaved ridiculously, and I had to keep totally quiet about that. (Until the Internet came along and I was able to have a good old moan about it all, here.)

So, this is the Samizdata-friendly moral I am attaching to all my screen searchings. People moan about capitalism, partly because they just do, but partly also because such behaviour is, when targetted at some particular bit of capitalism, at least as likely to be rewarded rather than punished. The problem will quite likely be solved.

Beneath and beyond the mere customer satisfaction issues with the particular product involved in this or that drama, there is the deep pleasure to be had from being publicly and incontrovertibly right about something of some significance. All those Samsung S24F356s were definitely overheating, as was that Samsung C24F396. Something was and is definitely wrong with them. I know that I am right about this, and now I know that I am being rather more publicly right about it. No wonder people sound off, as I have done, about this or that capitalist defect. It’s fun, and it works. The result is this constant hum of anti-capitalist complaint, and the constant downfall of capitalist enterprises that, metaphorically speaking – and perhaps in the case of Samsung, literally – cannot take the heat.

But if you complain about some government department or alleged government “service”, then quite aside from them merely announcing that this means they need more money, and that taxes should go up to pay for this, the only thing they are likely actually to do for you personally, or to you personally, is to punish you in some way for your insubordination.

If all you do to explain the – on the face of it utterly ridiculous – contrast between how much people complain about capitalism while simultaneously failing to complain a hundred times more and more loudly about the hugely worse public sector, is to bang on about how much better capitalism is and so very obviously is, you miss the point, or at any rate you miss my point. Which is: Look at which sort of complaining is likely to accomplish anything good, for you personally, if you personally do it. Once you do this, the contrast starts to make sense.

When you are having an argument with someone about about the relative merits of capitalism when compared to state provision, and when they point out how much people complain about capitalism, don’t just say: People do this because they are stupid. Say: People do this because it works.

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/people-will-die/feed/1234385Harry Potter and the Ignorance of Ignorancehttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/harry-potter-and-the-ignorance-of-ignorance/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/harry-potter-and-the-ignorance-of-ignorance/#commentsSun, 02 Jul 2017 21:07:12 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34300Many will know Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy, a fun essay by Benjamin Barton on episodes in the books that insinuate scepticism about government (and about mainstream media, though this is less the essay’s theme). In the Potter books (and even in ‘A Casual Vacancy’, which is a bad book written by a good writer), J.K.Rowling (sometimes wittingly, sometimes quite unwittingly, I think) teaches lessons that are indirectly unhelpful to those who love statism. Telling an 18-year-old, “You realise Corbyn’s Bureaucracy will be every bit as efficient, as fair and as restrained as the Ministry of Magic”, can be ...continue Harry Potter and the Ignorance of Ignorance]]>Many will know Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy, a fun essay by Benjamin Barton on episodes in the books that insinuate scepticism about government (and about mainstream media, though this is less the essay’s theme). In the Potter books (and even in ‘A Casual Vacancy’, which is a bad book written by a good writer), J.K.Rowling (sometimes wittingly, sometimes quite unwittingly, I think) teaches lessons that are indirectly unhelpful to those who love statism. Telling an 18-year-old, “You realise Corbyn’s Bureaucracy will be every bit as efficient, as fair and as restrained as the Ministry of Magic”, can be a more useful start to a conversation than mentioning Stalin or Venezuela. (Not that you’ll get any agreement from Rowling herself on that – but my post “Harry Potter and the Silly Tweets” must wait till another day. 🙂 )

When “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” came out in 2003, at the height of the protests against attacking Iraq and the war on terror, the PC brigade went off her for a while. The book’s picture of a hidden evil leader inspiring hideous acts of terrorism, while politicians and the media corruptly downplayed the danger, didn’t quite suit them. Of course, she had planned that plot in the mid-90s as a natural part of the series’ architecture – its appearance in 2003 was coincidental – but the essay has a point.

However right in the middle of his argument, Benjamin shows that he is an American – that the everyday experience of growing up as a child in Britain, with UK politics as a “noises off” background one gradually starts to notice, is one he has not had – and does not suspect that he needed. To him, it seems obvious that the politics of the Magical world are not democratic:

Defenders of bureaucracy argue that democracy justifies bureaucracy as a result of deliberation and public buy-in. Rowling strips the Ministry of Magic of even this most basic justification, as Fudge is replaced by Scrimgeour as the Minister of Magic with no mention of an election. To the contrary, Rowling uses the passive voice of the verb “to sack” repeatedly to describe Fudge’s fate. … It is unclear who appoints the Minister of Magic, but perhaps the elites.

Benjamin is arguing logically from his US experience: presidents are elected and are never just ‘sacked’. But the British reader instantly recognises that Benjamin is arguing from an ignorance of UK experience. Theresa May replaced David Cameron as prime minister without an election. An election has now been held and Theresa May is still prime minister, but had she not accepted her inevitable future by promising her party to “serve as long as you wish me to”, she might already have been sacked. She will cease being prime minister before the next election – probably long before. British children and teenagers, the book’s protagonists, grow up knowing that there are elections from time to time, and that the head of government changes from time to time, and that the two are related, but often only indirectly. They also see that Fudge talks like a politician in Britain – like a man with an electorate to worry about, a man who has to care about whether it ‘looks like’ he’s doing the right thing for the magical community.

So, transatlantic commenters, what things about the US do I not know that I do not know? And have I any company in my ignorant ignorance? Have you met an ignorance more ignorant, and more ignorant of it, than mine?

I appreciate it’s a hard question:

Bernard: “What is it that the prime minister does not know?”

Sir Humphrey: “How can I tell you what the prime minister doesn’t know? It could be almost anything!”

(From ‘Yes, Prime Minister’, episode 6, quoted from memory)

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/07/harry-potter-and-the-ignorance-of-ignorance/feed/5534300An intolerance of leftistshttps://www.samizdata.net/2017/06/an-intolerance-of-leftists/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/06/an-intolerance-of-leftists/#commentsTue, 27 Jun 2017 12:01:36 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34309The sight of the profoundly illiberal Jeremy Corbyn preaching to the young-and-ignorant at a music festival moved Christopher Barrow to pen some remarks

Just in case anyone missed it, Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech at Glastonbury last Saturday. Tens of thousands of British young people, high on a false sense of community and overpriced hash, lapped up his vision of a wonderful future. Why shouldn’t they? Just about everyone is apparently due to benefit, all at the expense of an unspecified ‘elite’.

Of course it was a vague speech offering goodies to young people, old people, sick people, students, European ...continue An intolerance of leftists]]>

The sight of the profoundly illiberal Jeremy Corbyn preaching to the young-and-ignorant at a music festival moved Christopher Barrow to pen some remarks

Just in case anyone missed it, Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech at Glastonbury last Saturday. Tens of thousands of British young people, high on a false sense of community and overpriced hash, lapped up his vision of a wonderful future. Why shouldn’t they? Just about everyone is apparently due to benefit, all at the expense of an unspecified ‘elite’.

Of course it was a vague speech offering goodies to young people, old people, sick people, students, European residents and ‘refugees’. The plan would actually mean higher tax for all working people (who the Labour Party are supposed to prioritize) and a vast raising of our National Debt, as Obama did.

The really concerning matter however is the lack of logic and common sense that lies beneath current leftist and ‘liberal’ (in the US sense of the word) ideologies now prevalent in our societies. There are huge dangers that cannot be overstated, though they remain hidden in Corbyn’s recent advertisement for Leftism, especially to young people.

As I see it the main problem with leftist rhetoric is that it is solely focused upon “what it is not”. Granted it is anything but the stereotypical mindset of a bigoted white male; the wolf-whistling, England for the English brigade (who would actually be virtually impossible to find these days). Let’s call this “Retro Racism”.

The left have decided that as long as they vehemently oppose anything approaching this, then anything goes: they’ve achieved ideological enlightenment. The danger of this leftist viewpoint, the source of their strength and smugness, is that opposition to Retro Racism is actually all its got. It fails to understand that there are higher and more sophisticated points of view than just a strong distaste for Retro Racism. The are important paths of logic and sense that it doesn’t allow itself to explore.

This is precisely what Political Correctness is. It makes everyone hypersensitive about going anywhere even close to the vilified Retro Racism. This becomes the total scope of the political toolkit of active ‘liberal’ leftist. Facing the many and varied problems of the world principally tied to an aversion to anything not Politically Correct is irresponsible in the extreme. Political Correctness shuts down sophisticated discussion, at a time in the world when it is needed most. There are far more levels of sophistication beyond being “not racist”! Naivety isn’t the pinnacle of intelligence, nor is it of kindness.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this is the question of immigration. Corbyn glows with smugness and vanity as he proclaims “bridges not walls for refugees”. One question of actual reality (a place where leftists don’t like to venture) is at what point would you erect a wall instead of a bridge? A 100,000,000 population for Britain? 150,000,000? Maybe a population like this is the best thing for the country, but at least lets talk about it! It isn’t racist.

However aren’t leftists are a shining example of tolerance, love and unity? Well yes to everyone BUT white males who don’t cower to their ideology. If not, you’re fair game for abuse, violence and assassination if they had their way. The strong white male is anathema to the feminized West. Leftism appeals to repressed aggressive individuals and offers a safe environment to direct their anger. This is so dangerous for our future. Jungian Shadow anyone!?

It is not an exaggeration to state that we see shades of the violence of Communist Russia in the leftist pursuits of the modern Western world. Namely people believing they are correct to defend an ideology with violence when they are so convinced about it. This is a slippery slope indeed…

Of course we all want a world somewhat like the one described by Corbyn at Glastonbury. But the key point is to understand human nature. We have to be open and honest with ourselves as a starting point. Leftism is a dangerous meeting of repression with naivety. It we start out falsely misjudging ourselves, we are heading for deep trouble.

The problem is that understanding the problems of leftism is a sophisticated endeavour. You can’t communicate this to 50,000 young people in a field. There is always hope for the future. Lets just hope the youth discover truth over platitudes. Wisdom over naivety. And Love over vanity.

– Christopher Barrow

]]>https://www.samizdata.net/2017/06/an-intolerance-of-leftists/feed/4434309Can happiness be distributed less unequally?https://www.samizdata.net/2017/06/can-happiness-be-distributed-less-unequally/
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/06/can-happiness-be-distributed-less-unequally/#commentsTue, 27 Jun 2017 11:22:54 +0000https://www.samizdata.net/?p=34281The replies to Natalie’s recent question, What were you doing a year ago… contain many a phrase like “I just couldn’t stop grinning” and “Ah, the happy Friday and Saturday”.

Reading them reminded me of a Christmas card I got from friends six months ago. Usually it contains a printed newsletter of what they and their children have been up to during the year. For the first time in some three decades since we left university, there was no newsletter – just a short hand-written note saying that Brexit and Trump had so depressed them that they had decided to ...continue Can happiness be distributed less unequally?]]>

The replies to Natalie’s recent question, What were you doing a year ago… contain many a phrase like “I just couldn’t stop grinning” and “Ah, the happy Friday and Saturday”.

Reading them reminded me of a Christmas card I got from friends six months ago. Usually it contains a printed newsletter of what they and their children have been up to during the year. For the first time in some three decades since we left university, there was no newsletter – just a short hand-written note saying that Brexit and Trump had so depressed them that they had decided to “cultiver nos jardin.”

Elections – and politics generally – seem to cause great inequality of happiness. As the result of each election or vote is announced, some are very elated and others are very depressed. If equality of happiness is the goal, should we diminish the importance of politics? After all, it surely can hardly be that they enjoy our misery – or we theirs – since such a view of human nature would seem to rule out the kind of grand government plan that risks the perverse incentives of its methods in order to advance its worthy goals. 🙂

At a time when standard arguments against socialism are not being quite as effective as we could wish here in the UK, I wonder how this one might fare?